Often, it is desirable to operate an aircraft in accordance with a stabilized approach when close to the airport (e.g., within a few miles and aligned with the runway) in order to land safely. The stabilized approach is generally defined in terms of a number of specific criteria, which may be set forth by a safety organization (e.g., the Flight Safety Foundation), a standards organization or other regulatory body, an airline, an aircraft manufacturer, or the like. Achieving a stabilized approach can be a challenging task, especially in certain circumstances such as adverse weather conditions, on-board malfunctions, low quality of air traffic control (ATC), bad crew cooperation, fatigue, visual illusions, inexperienced crew members, and the like.
Traditionally, flight crews relied on memorized manuals or acquired experience in performing approaches. If a stabilized approach is not performed, regulations may require the crew to commence a “go-around” procedure, however, in some instances, flight crews may disobey the regulations (e.g., to meet “on-time” metrics, minimize costs, or the like) or a flight crew in an unstabilized approach situation may believe that they will stabilize the aircraft in time for a safe landing. That said, unstabilized approaches have been shown to be a causal factor in a number of approach- and landing-related incidents. Furthermore, in situations where an aircraft needs to deviate from an original flight plan, such as an emergency situation, achieving a stabilized approach to a diversion destination can be even more difficult due to the unplanned nature of the descent. Moreover, the time-sensitive nature of the aircraft operation in an emergency situation can increase the stress on the pilot, which, in turn, increases the likelihood of pilot error. Accordingly, it is desirable to reduce the mental workload of the pilot and better facilitate safe descent for an aircraft, particularly in the event of a diversion from its original flight plan.